Folger v. Worth
Folger v. Worth
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court. The .statute which was in force at the time of the alleged trespass, was St. 1834, c. 184, § 4 ; to which the Revised Statutes, c. 19, § 22, substantially conform.. It provides, that the field drivers are severally authorized and required to take up, at any time, any swine, sheep, horses, &c. going at large in the public highways or town-ways, or on any common and unimproved lands, and not under the care of a keeper, and restrain them in the town pound ; and the only question is, whether there are or can be any highways in Nantucket. Indeed we
But we cannot perceive in any of the documents relied on, that the lands in Nantucket are held upon any different tenure, than those of other lands in the Commonwealth. The early settlers, in order the better and more effectually to secure their title, took deeds of the Indians, and of various other persons and authorities, who had any color of title. The island seems to have been purchased by the Mayhews of James Forrest, agent of the Earl of Sterling, afterwards confirmed by a deed of Francis Lovelace, Governor of New York under His Highness, James, Duke of York, in March 1671, and again by deed of Thomas Dongan, Governor of New York, in June 1684. There is nothing peculiar in these documents ; they are in form confirmations of the property to the proprietors, with the privileges and immunities of a town. By the Province charter of 1692, the island was included in the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.
But in whatever view these early deeds and patents can be considered, they could do nothing more in the way of property, than to vest in the proprietors a title in fee simple, in common or in severalty. But whether held in one form or the other, there is nothing to prevent the public from having highways over them, either by grant, or laying out according to statute.
It appears by the facts that there is no record of the laying out of highways, yet that the streets of the town have been used as highways, from time immemorial. It is now, we think, too late to contend, that the existence of a highway cannot be proved by immemorial usage. Commonwealth v. Low, 3 Pick. 408; Reed v. Northfield, 13 Pick. 94; Stedman v. Southbridge, 17 Pick. 162. Indeed, but for this principle, there would be no highways in Nantucket, and a citizen of the Commonwealth or any other State in the Union, passing
There may indeed a difficult question of fact arise, as to which and how many of the various tracks, which traverse the island, have been so much, so long and so uninterruptedly used, as to show them to be highways ; but no doubt can exist, as to the streets of the town, upon which houses have been long standing, and which are necessary to afford access to such houses. And probably no real practical difficulty will arise as to other roads through the island ; and if there should, the laws of the Commonwealth are as open to them, as to all other citizens, conformably to which, all highways of common convenience and necessity, may be duly laid out.
Plaintiff nonsuit
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Walter Folger versus Benjamin Worth
- Status
- Published